Why don't snipers just use robotic guns?

Factual Questions
21

You can’t mount a weapon to that. What do you think is going to happen when the rifle fires? It isn’t going to stay put on that tiny little thing. Without a shooter there to hold and stabilize the rifle, that tripod isn’t going to do anything. So putting servos on it and stuff is worthless. And if you are going to use the shooter as “balast” (as you say), then you take away all the benefits of removing the shooter from the equation anyway. Just by bracing the rifle, the shooter needs to worry about all the stuff he would otherwise: breath control, steady position, proper body position, etc. The servos wouldn’t be much of a help at all.

If you truly want the weapon to be remote activated and controlled, you need a heavy tripod and strong servos that can take the recoil. And that isn’t going to come from an 11oz tripod and Tyco servos.

And what benefit would that be? It’s not going to support the weapon like that. If you put the tripod up front where bipods are, you still need to support the weapon in the rear. And, in fact, it is actually the REAR of the rifle that you are moving to make your adjustments. That’s why you put a sand sock in the rear under the stock to make very minor adjustments. Squeeze the sock and lower your muzzle slightly. Release pressure on the sock and you barrel rizes. So mounting a tripod in the front of the rifle doesn’t add much benefit at all. It’s really a tiny little task associated with shooting compared to all the other variables of range and weather.

And if you decide you can mount your little tripod in the center of the rifle, is it going to be able to work on anything other than flat ground? Can it work on a large rock, or in the marsh for instance? When you’re in an overwatch position in the mountains, your bipods are resting on the huge boulder in front of you. How is your system going to accomplish this?

Current remote weapon systems are used in sentry positions and on vehicles, they are of no use in a sniper roll. No use at all.

The barrell is the heaviest part of the gun. Not the firing pin. You will still need a bolt carrier actually to chamber the rounds. So your new fancy electronic bolt will be just as heavy if not much heavier.

They will never see servicing by the sniper… that is exactly my point. Because they WILL need servicing. And what good is a sniper who can’t service his own weapon–and do so in the field?
Those servos WILL need to be serviced. They WILL break. They WILL malfunction. And it’s going to be an expert civilian called in to do the work. Logistics…
And that’s just the hardware. What about the software involved? More shit to malfunction.

[quote]
If your bullets are not compatible with a spark firing system, you could always just use a small solenoid to move a pin.[/quoute] More weight. And don’t get me started on how fragile solenoids are. If you pick those fuckers up improperly they break!

Because they are of no use in a sniper role. They are for vehicles and sentry positions and things with very heavy, very stable bases. Not fragile 11oz tripods on rocky, sloped terrain.
And I think if there was a competition to see who could move 6km in varying terrain, perform a river crossing, and then cliimb 800 ft up a small mountain into an overwatch position and then engage targets as they presented themsevles, I would win over someone trying the same thing with the weapon system you are proposing. That’s assuming you could even get past all the things wrong with your idea in the first place, since it won’t even work.

They shoot machine guns more accurately than a human. And they do this from a very heavy, stable foundation using huge, heavy ass servos controlled by computer software and activated with a joystick and buttons. Not to mention the bulky monitor and the power supply.
A human with a 50 cal sniper rifle can shoot much, much more accurately than a human shooting a 50 cal M2 with a remote weapon station.

Did you even consider the power supply in your weight calculations?

There really just isn’t a use for such a thing in the sniper roll. And if there was a use, and if you could get past the impossibilities by keeping it not heavy, and able to set up, deploy and redeploy easily and quickly (not possible), then the maintenance and support of the equipment alone would make it impractical for a sniper.

There aren’t empy sniper slots waiting to be filled. Sniper teams makes up a very tiny part of a Brigade. They are elite not just because it’s hard to train snipers, but because there isn’t a need for many of them. You are assuming a need where none exists.

Mechanical firing components are infinitly more reliable than electronic ones. There is no point at all in doing such a thing. You’re not reducing weight, and you’re reducing reliability. So what is the benefit? It certainly doesn’t “lower complexity” if that were even an issue to begin with.

22

You know what might actually work? A rifle that’s attached direcly to a pivot affixed to the sniper’s right shoulder. Completely hands-off - no need for a bipod at all!

The whole thing will be modeled after fighter pilot HUD helmets. The gun will track the shooter’s eye movements to the target; the scope will be located in the helmet rather than on the rifle. Just look, press the button and fire. The weapon will still be steadied by its carrier, but by the entire body, not the hands and shoulders.

Of course, I don’t thing the technology is quite there yet.

23

My WAG here is that the target is moving. If the target was perfectly stationary, a robot would be superior to humans. Also, according to this article, there’s many more calculations than simply location of the target. Wind, for example, would need to be measured visually. Knowing the wind at my location, for example, doesn’t mean the wind is consistent throughout the path of the bullet.

24

Is there any evidence that snipers are not fully effective with their current weapon?

It seems to me that if a sniper misses his shot, it is more likely to do with things like not accurately accounting for windage, or the target moving in the short (but substantial) period of time that a bullet is in flight. A robotic rifle doesn’t solve either of those problems.

If there is some evidence that putting the cross hairs of a scope is a substantial problem for a well-trained human, that’s one thing. But I’m not sure that is the issue in this case, so my guess is that we have a solution in search of a problem.

25

I’d think the replacement for a sniper in the US is generally a predator drone rather than a robotic gun.

Theres no risk to the firer, it can be almost invisible, have a greater range of attack options, etc. Smaller versions than ones using hellfire missiles are no doubt being considered. After writing this I thought Id try googling robot sniper and got this:

Otara

26

For long range shots, snipers are already using the assistance of computers like with the CheyTac Intervention: CheyTac Intervention - Wikipedia

The computer measures and calculates the bullet trajectory using the current conditions and then provides the user with corrections to be manually made to their telescopic sights. You can actually measure the wind profile of the path your bullet will take using the lasers. Without the computer’s help, snipers would be way less effective at long range shots because they wouldn’t be able to do the ballistic integration math on the fly. With a robotic gun, you take this manual step away and have the computer auto correct for you. You just point at your target and spend much less time measuring and fiddling. More time for shooting.

27

The CheyTac Intervention already measures the wind profile of your bullet path and it does the ballistic math to calculate corrections. Something an old fashioned sniper can’t do on the fly.

28

One problem with a helicopter robot sniper is that it makes a hell of a lot of noise and is pretty easy to spot.

29

Yeah right. Look at the M16 and how well that fared in Vietnam.

30

Nice strawman. No sniper uses an M16. Not in Vietnam, and not in present day. Not to mention the fact that the issues with the M16 involved the gas system and had nothing to do with the firing pin or bolt. You are talking about replacing only the trigger group, hammer and firing pin with electronics. None of those things caused any of the issues or jams the Vietnam era M16 was prone to. There isn’t much that can go wrong in a normal bolt action rifle compared to one that is loaded down with electronics.

So again, I ask you. What is the point.

I am starting to believe you didn’t come here for answers to your questions. You came here to argue and promote your insane ideas and advertise your tactical ignorance to all who will listen.

31

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t do anything automatically, you have to feed the data into a PDA. And it just tells you the adjustments.

And even if you have the environmental package with sensors connected to your PDA, there is nobody arguing that calculators and small, light weight wind meters, thermometers and range finders are of no benefit. They are. I can see the use of such a PDA. (which explains why it exists and your idea does not)
But then having a remote controlled rifle mounted on some kind of flimsy platform with little servos on it has no benefit.

Yes they can. What’s the diffence between entering the data into a PDA or just using a simple calculator. The wind formula is not Calculus, it is simple math. Ditto for temperature. Not to mention the fact that the wind speed and direction MID-RANGE to your target is most important. Your little PDA is only going to tell you the wind speed where YOU are. The wind speed of your location and your target’s location are not as important as at the mid-range. And how are you going to calculate that? Good old fashioned wind estimation.

32

Actually, it is calculus. What do you think the CheyTac PDA is doing with all the wind profile data and ballistic trajectories? And if you read up on the CheyTac instruments, you will see that it can measure the wind profile downrange, not just where you are.

33

Wind and temperature adjustments are NOT calculus. It is simple math one can do in his head.

Either way, the CheyTac Intervention (the rifle) does nothing. No adjustments to the rifle are made automatically. Because there is no need for such a thing. Human shooters, albeit with computers helping with math and variable data, are more effective.
If your sniper rifle never moved. If it never had to be relocated from one side of a valley to the other and then set back up again, then maybe there would be use for such a thing. But then we are back to talking about sentry weapons.
There would be some use to an RWS Sniper System in a sentry roll. Or, as I mentioned, vehicle mounted. I could see it even mounted to a small tracked robot like the robot sentries on the DMZ.
But there is no man-portable use for it. It has no applicability in the classic sniper roll which involves a hell of a lot of moving.

34

I would not want to test this. If you stand completely still in front of a mirror, you can watch your body sway back and forth with every heartbeat. Now imagine attaching a 20lb weight to your shoulder and see how still you can be. Then have a mule kick you where the weight is attached above your shoulder and work out how much reinforcement your clothes/shoulder will need to keep it from flying off. And by “it”, I’m not sure if I mean the weight or the shoulder.

35

They’re only simple math if you assume that the wind is the same everywhere between you and your target, which you yourself pointed out is a bad assumption. If it varies, then it’s a calculus problem.

We all know that. The question is, why not? If a machine is calculating the corrections anyway, and a machine can move the gun more precisely than a human, then why do we put a human middleman in?

36

First of all, the apparatus will be attached directly to the soldier’s ceramic body armor. It’ll be steadier than anything he could hold in his hands, and as for weight - he’ll be carrying it anyway, and it’s easier to carry something attached to your torso than it is to carry it in your arms.

Second of all, most shooting will take place with the soldier lying flat on his stomach, just like with a regular sniper.

37

Simple. Mobility! Moving the weapon system from one location to the other is the major issue. The weight involved in a system described in the OP (Adjusted for reality) is not practical because of the weight involved and amount of time it takes to set up the thing and then break it down again for transport.
The thing could be useful as a sentry weapon, but not for use in a normal sniper mission.

But that level of accuracy is usually greater than the accuracy of the rifle and/or ammunition. So such complex equations are not really required. Accurate estimation of wind at the mid-range is more than sufficient for pretty much any shot you will actually take in combat.

38

FWIW, I have never fired a rifle in combat laying in the prone. Not even a long range rifle. In Iraq it was usually sitting inside a room, just inside the window, with the bipods on a desk or something and sitting in a chair or on a pile of debris.
In Afghanistan, it’s usually sitting against the reverse slope of a mountain with the bipods on a huge rock or something. I will try to find pictures.

39

There is no man-portable use given the current state of the technology. If your average, untrained grunt could walk down a field blasting away targets a mile away that would be a fairly significant ability. The grand majority of bullets, I suspect, never hit their target in modern day – which is both a monetary and war-making loss.

Right now, the sniper is seen as a guy who inches his way along a field to spot and take out targets without getting caught. But that’s because there’s a limited number of guys who can put a sniper rifle to use, so the first priority is in keeping him alive, not in taking out as many targets from long-range as one feasibly can. His defense is in being highly mobile, small, and easily hid. But if you have 100 guys with sniper rifles and the enemy has regular guns, you can have them essentially just stand out in the open and mow down the enemy with all head-shots before they ever get in range. A single sniper can’t do that because he’s always outnumbered.

40

Isn’t that kind of the point. Technology does not make the OP’s idea feasable.
You are right though. Modern technology is not at the point of having man-portable, computer controlled, servo actuated rifles, complete with optics, video displays and power supply.If the question was about the benefit of soldiers having some kind of futuristic, lightweight system that allowed them to control their rifle with a joystick and engage targets with a heads up display, the answer would be that sure there is a use for it, but the technology is a hundred years out. And by the time technology allowed such a weapon system to be feasable, we could probably come up with something much better anyway, like mini MECHs or total exoskeleton suits with integrated weapon systems and no traditional rifle whatsoever.

But the question was about modern day SNIPERS and modern day technology.

The men in your scenario would not be snipers, they would be grunts with super-advanced weapons.
How are these grunts going to see and positively identify targets 1 mile away? If he did, just have the FO call in artillery or lob some mortars at them. Much more effective.
I’m sure these targets are moving, right? Is this weapon system going to auto-track the target and engage people running laterally? And anyway, your scenario is not that of a “sniper”. The question was why don’t SNIPERS use robotic guns. And the answer is that current technology and materials make it infeasible.

This isn’t really accurate in either of today’s combat theatres. A sniper or long range marksman is usually just pulling overwatch for a larger element, not someone sneaking into enemy territory to take out a high value target.

Do you assume that the enemy does not have IDF capability? Try that in Afghanistan with any weapon system, real or make-believe, and you are going to get hammered with rockets or mortars… from further out than your rifle, I assure you. The range on a Soviet 107mm rocket is like 10km!!

And because if you had 100 guys to send in on a mission, you would be better off equiping them with a wide variety of weapon systems to include machine guns, 60mm mortars, shoulder fired rockets, battle rifles, long range rifles, and 40mm grenades. You would be much more effective and maneuverable than just trying to shoot everyone in the head with your magical Unicorn Rifle.